Orthogonality in Minkowski Spacetime: Meaning & Visualization

In summary: Since the axes are no longer perpendicular, this means that the coordinate time is no longer orthogonal on space.
  • #1
lindberg
40
20
TL;DR Summary
What does it mean for time to be orthogonal on space in Minkowski spacetime?
I have read that non-inertial frames are those, where time is not orthogonal on space. Does it just mean that the speed of light is not isotropic there or does it mean anything else? How can I picture more easily this concept (for space orthogonality I just imagine perpendicularity of one axis on the other, how is it different for time?)
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
lindberg said:
Summary: What does it mean for time to be orthogonal on space in Minkowski spacetime?

I have read that non-inertial frames are those, where time is not orthogonal on space.
Where? It is generally not correct.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
Here is just a brief definition from wiki:
1655888914478.png

So what happens in non-inertial frames? Why are they non-orthogonal?
What is the definition for that?
Here is where I got the idea of non-orthogonality:
1655889040064.png

He goes on to say:
"In general one can conclude that non-invariance and degree of anisotropy for the local, physically measurable speed of light are directly dependent on the slope of the time axis relative to the 3D space axes. All 6 frames for which time is orthogonal to space have isotropic light speed equal to c. All NTO frames have anisotropic light speed not equal to c."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0005121.pdf
Thanks.
 
  • #4
lindberg said:
How can I picture more easily this concept (for space orthogonality I just imagine perpendicularity of one axis on the other, how is it different for time?)
Thanks.
And to answer this: It is not different from spatial perpendicularity. The only difference is that perpendicularity is determined by the Minkowski metric and not a Euclidean metric.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and vanhees71
  • #5
lindberg said:
Why are they non-orthogonal?
As i already said, this is not correct. There are accelerated frames where the coordinate time is orthogonal to the spatial directions.

The wiki page is also not saying that accelerated frames are non-orthogonal. It is saying that you can construct an orthogonal basis in an inertial frame. Those are very different statements.

To be blunt: From your posts you do not seem to have mastered the basics of special relativity in inertial frames. I would strongly suggest you obtain that mastery before delving into accelerated frames or your understanding will suffer tremendously.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and Vanadium 50
  • #6
...and the "Minowski metric" is not a metric, because it's not positive definite. It's a "fundamental bilinear form" inducing a pseudo-metric rather than a metric. That's why you have "null vectors" ("lightlike vectors") in Minkowski space, i.e., ##x \cdot x=0## but ##x \neq 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes David Lewis, dextercioby, lindberg and 1 other person
  • #7
I would say an inertial frame is one in which objects moving inertially (i.e., have zero proper acceleration) have zero coordinate acceleration. This definition includes some coordinate systems which have non-orthogonal time axes.

Switching to such a coordinate system makes a lot of things messy, basically because almost all physics requires you at some point to calculate ##\frac d{d t}## at some point. In a non-orthogonal system rate of change of ##t## depends on your rate of change of ##x## as well, so you have a lot of extra derivatives in your maths to handle this. This is why velocities (including that of light) become non-isotropic - because ##\frac{\partial x}{\partial t}## is involved in your definition of velocity and it can be positive, negative, or zero depending on which direction you go.

Non-inertial systems may or may not have time axes orthogonal to their spatial planes. Inertiality or lack thereof of your coordinate system is not generally the same issue as orthogonality.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and lindberg
  • #8
To address the issue in the title of this thread... orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime

Based on
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/angles-in-minkowski-space.991133/post-6364132
and https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/600504/148184

Physically, given the 4-velocity of an inertial observer,
that observer's sense of space is a "[hyper]plane of simultaneity",
which is
geometrically, determined by the tangent [hyperplane] to the "unit hyperboloid" at the tip of the 4-velocity.
This defines "orthogonality" or "perpendicularity" to the 4-velocity vector.

More details (based on my stackexchange answer):
The "lines of simultaneity (i.e, equal-assignments-of-t)" are determined by the tangents to the "circles" [in the respective geometries], which is a hyperbola in Special Relativity (arising from the invariance of the speed of light).

The "circle" is determined by the set of all observer "tick-1"s.
The "circle" defines perpendicularity: the tangent is perpendicular to the radius...
"the Space[line] is Perpendicular to the Time[line] (worldline)", as Minkowski described in his "Space and Time".

From Minkowski's "Space and Time"...

We decompose any vector, such as that from O to x, y, z, t into four components x, y, z, t. If the directions of two vectors are, respectively, that of a radius vector OR from O to one of the surfaces ##\mp F=1##, and that of a tangent RS at the point R on the same surface, the vectors are called normal to each other. Accordingly,

$$c^2tt_1 − xx_1 − yy_1 − zz_1 = 0$$
is the condition for the vectors with components x, y, z, t and ##x_1##, ##y_1##, ##z_1##, ##t_1## to be normal to each other.

See this definition used in
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/r4eij6f9vw (robphy's spacetime diagrammer v.3)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kv8szi3ic8 (robphy's spacetime diagrammer for relativity v.8d-2020)

First, vary the ##v_1## and ##v_2## sliders to get a feel for "tangency".

For the E-slider = +1, we have Minkowski spacetime
(on your way to E= -1 for Euclidean space, note the E=0 case is the Galilean spacetime)

Here is E = +1 (Minkowski)
1655897062235.png


E= -1 (Euclidean)
1655897068630.png


Further details: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/638018/148184
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Sagittarius A-Star, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #9
@Orodruin I think you are right, I have delved into rotating and accelerated frames before being completely clear on inertial ones. Would you recommend some resources for beginners to understand the standard Minkowski geometry in inertial frames?
Thank you.
 
  • #10
lindberg said:
@Orodruin I think you are right, I have delved into rotating and accelerated frames before being completely clear on inertial ones. Would you recommend some resources for beginners to understand the standard Minkowski geometry in inertial frames?
Thank you.
Here's my try to explain it:

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf
 
  • Informative
Likes lindberg
  • #11
lindberg said:
@Orodruin I think you are right, I have delved into rotating and accelerated frames before being completely clear on inertial ones. Would you recommend some resources for beginners to understand the standard Minkowski geometry in inertial frames?
Thank you.
My first recommendation is Taylor and Wheeler’s “Spacetime Physics”
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Vanadium 50, vanhees71 and lindberg
  • #13
Nugatory said:
My first recommendation is Taylor and Wheeler’s “Spacetime Physics”
First edition, if you can find it.
 
  • Like
Likes lindberg, robphy and vanhees71
  • #14
Vanadium 50 said:
First edition, if you can find it.
The first edition… with the worked problems.

"Spacetime Physics" (1966 Maroon cover) by Taylor and Wheeler.
There is a version with about 210 pages and one with 270 pages.
The 270-page version has solutions to problems. (Parts are here on Taylor's website: https://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#special_relativity .
Note: The Second edition sadly does not use rapidity.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #15
paige turner said:
I'm sorry to take up space, but I'm not sure if this deserves its own thread. Do you think it does?
No, you just need to stop being sloppy and cluttering the thread with incorrect statements.

paige turner said:
why are you so angry, anyway?
I'm not angry, I'm doing my job as a moderator. Part of my job is to manage the signal to noise ratio of the forums. Cluttering threads with repeated incorrect statements is noise. Stop doing it.

paige turner said:
I didn't come up with some "theory," I'm just pointing out an attribute we observe in the interval metric equation -- specifically, that elapsed time "acts like" negative distance.
Which is wrong, as you have been repeatedly told. You have now been banned from further posting in this thread.
 

1. What is orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime?

Orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime refers to the concept of perpendicularity between two vectors in a four-dimensional spacetime. It is a fundamental principle in special relativity, where the concept of time is treated as a fourth dimension and is combined with the three dimensions of space to form a four-dimensional spacetime.

2. How is orthogonality visualized in Minkowski spacetime?

Orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime can be visualized using a spacetime diagram, where the x and t axes represent the spatial and temporal dimensions, respectively. Two vectors are considered orthogonal if they form a right angle on this diagram.

3. What is the significance of orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime?

Orthogonality in Minkowski spacetime is significant because it is a key concept in understanding the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction. It also plays a crucial role in the formulation of the laws of physics in a four-dimensional spacetime.

4. How does orthogonality relate to the concept of spacetime intervals?

Orthogonality is closely related to the concept of spacetime intervals, which is a measure of the distance between two events in Minkowski spacetime. The spacetime interval between two events is considered invariant, meaning it is the same for all observers, only if the two events are orthogonal to each other.

5. Can orthogonality exist in curved spacetime?

Yes, orthogonality can exist in curved spacetime. In general relativity, the concept of orthogonality is extended to include the curvature of spacetime. This means that two vectors can still be considered orthogonal to each other even in a curved spacetime, as long as they form a right angle on the curved spacetime diagram.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
656
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
69
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K
Back
Top